Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apathia said:
My interpretation is that he means Mathematics as the language of thought, and that the paradigm shift must begin there with new rules of thought.

He has presented illustrations of his new Rules though not a primer on how to think right yet.
Click to expand...


He could mean all sorts of things since he provides little clarity in his expression, but none of it has been Mathematics.

(By the way, Calculus doesn't depend on infinitesimals.)
 
jsfisher said:
You demand of others the very thing you have never provided, never been able to provide, for your own statements.
Click to expand...

www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12412827&postcount=3095 and forward provide the needed details by using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, and they are not only statements (verbal_symbolic-only reasoning).

You are invited to criticize them in details, but please be aware of the simple fact that this criticism can be done only by using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

jsfisher said:
He could mean all sorts of things since he provides little clarity in his expression, but none of it has been Mathematics.
Click to expand...

jsfisher, untill now you did not support your claims above, so once again, please provide your detailed replies to the contents of www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12412827&postcount=3095 and forward.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Mathematical formalism which rigorously defines forms by using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, definitely expends forms beyond verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.

So I agree with, jsfisher, that "Any constraint of formalism gets rejected.", exactly becaue verbal_symbolic-only reasoning is literally constraint of formalism.



Classical mathematics' formalism is based on verbal_symbolic only reasoning. My suggested framework is exactly Mathematics, and any attempt to decorate it by alternative titles like meta-mathematics, is a way to avoid the paradigm shift in Mathematics.
Click to expand...

What you are after is certainly a "game changer." The rules and even the ball tossed about are not what's widely called "Mathematics." Your approach is radical and must by its nature replace what is called "Mathematics," with something very new. However, one of the traditional ideas of what Mathematics is at the core is the notion that it states and works from the very rules of thought. Since you have presented your basic new rules for the game, you have entitlement to call it Mathematics. So far your presentation have been on a meta level. That's where it has to start. Calling what you present so far as a "meta-mathematic," is the way of opening a door into the "Old Boy's Club" of traditional mathematicians, where you can have some recognition rather than the usual dismissal that says, "This dude has no place to say anything at all." Package your seed-bombs a little, not just by using mathematical terms but by carrying a semblance of a hoe, so you are given access to the garden and can begin weeding it without being chased out by the so-called owners.


As for you, Apahtia, you are a real mathematician exactly because your reasoning is not constrained by verbal_symbolic-only reasoning. verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

Thanks. This gives this math impaired person some place in your mathematics-centric cultural revolution.
 
Last edited:
The line method is very well, and is quite elegant once you understand it, but (to my view) fails completely to give an insight in to the actual operation of multiplication.

I'm quite glad I was never taught that method, because I'm not sure it would help me in my understanding of mathematics.

Everyone is different of course, so what works for some will not work for others, and no doubt there are some insights from that method that are not immediately obvious, to me anyway.
 
doronshadmi said:
Being (or Existence) is not limited to its expressions, where given any collection of expressions, whether they are subjective or objective, the experience of UNITY is fundamentally non-composed, and this non-composed awareness is exactly the glue that gathers subjective and objective composed expressions into an organic harmonious whole, which is the optimal condition for endlessly finer novel expressions (they do not block each others' further development anymore).

Currently our universe is not at Unity awareness, but Life phenomena is exactly its way to eventually become an organic harmonious whole of endlessly finer novel expressions.

This evolution can happen in geometric series rate, and one of its biggest blocks is the notion that AI is its composed expressions (where such block is exactly Cantor's transfinite universe of infinite sets' fixed cardinality or the notion of Limits, which actually ignore infinitesimals (endlessly finer novel expressions)).
Click to expand...

That is one delicious word salad.
 
Apathia said:
Doron,

Japanese line method for multiplication:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...98C896C801E9196C09A698C896C801E9196&FORM=VIRE

Of course it's not to your standard of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic. but look how visual_spatial it is!

I wish I had been taught multiplication by this method.
Click to expand...

Dear Apathia, thank you for sharing this visual_spatial multiplication method.

But as you wrote, my suggested method is not less than visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic, which its foundation goes also beyond multiplicity (beyond the notion of collection) in order to be aware of Actual Infinity as the non-composed source of both its finitely weaker and infinitely weaker composed expressions (as already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12412827&postcount=3095 and forward).
 
MetalPig said:
You probably have. The only difference between this method and what I was taught is that we write numbers where this method draws lines.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I watched a how to youtube for this, and soon as the demonstrator carried a 1 to the next diagonal my memories of trauma flooded back.

It appeals to me though, cause it's easier for me to follow the process.
I envy those people who can do math calculations in their heads with ease.

Of course for larger numbers it becomes a gigantic spider web and you the hapless fly.
 
Last edited:
Worm said:
The line method is very well, and is quite elegant once you understand it, but (to my view) fails completely to give an insight in to the actual operation of multiplication.

I'm quite glad I was never taught that method, because I'm not sure it would help me in my understanding of mathematics.

Everyone is different of course, so what works for some will not work for others, and no doubt there are some insights from that method that are not immediately obvious, to me anyway.
Click to expand...

I did some reading on it this morning. Where it's used it's not the be all end all. Kids do learn the multiplication tables, and it's followed up by the usual method. For large numbers it becomes a pain of its own having to draw so many lines.

Much has been done in a couple of generations here in the USA to try to teach the insights behind mathematical operations and calculation methods. There was "New Math" and then Math in Common Core. Yet as a nation our populace is still math impaired compared to many others. What's with us?
 
Belz... said:
That is one delicious word salad.
Click to expand...

Allow me to take out most of the garnishings.
In essence he's saying we can't have a harmonious, peaceful society in which we survive, thrive, and evolve, because our mathematics contains concepts such as Transfinite numbers, Limits, and Infinitesimals that misrepresent Infinity.

Actual Infinity for Doron is the unifying ground on which there is no us vs them and there is Equality. Actual Infinity is the single substance of Being.
Without awareness of this UNITY as the ground of our thinking and our language of thought, we are cut off from Being, or we are mentally impaired.

So we must have a new mathematics that doesn't have and use harmful concepts about Infinity.

There's some more to it about Doron's chief principles of thought (Visual_Spatial AND Verbal_Symbolic), but this is his chief compliant.

I'm waiting for someone to make a certain astute comment about this. Otherwise my complete response to it would be a word salad of its own.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Dear Apathia, thank you for sharing this visual_spatial multiplication method.

But as you wrote, my suggested method is not less than visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic, which its foundation goes also beyond multiplicity (beyond the notion of collection) in order to be aware of Actual Infinity as the non-composed source of both its finitely weaker and infinitely weaker composed expressions (as already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12412827&postcount=3095 and forward).
Click to expand...

Beyond multiplicity, beyond divisibility, beyond derivatives and integration, beyond (deeper than) prime numbers, beyond doing calculations.

"Beyond the notion of collections." Yes let's keep moving beyond conceptions!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom